9911796707
TMI Blog1942 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of the property mentioned in the plaint and that the property was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree in suit No. 30 of 1927 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra. This decree was one for the sale of the property mentioned in the plaint on the basis of a deed of simple mortgage executed by Parmeshwari Das in favour of Nathimal. It is alleged in the plaint that Nathimal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged. On the other side it was alleged by the defendants that Parmeshwari Das was the sole owner of the property. 2. The learned Judge of the Court below came to the conclusion that neither of the parties was telling the truth and that, in fact, the property in suit was the joint family property of Beni Prasad, who is now dead, Parmeshwari Das and Jagannath Prasad. The learned Judge also held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad alleged in his plaint that he was living separate from Parmeshwari Das, and therefore it might perhaps have been the intention of the learned Judge to hold that the property had ceased to be the joint property of the father and the son. However that may be, it seems to us that the appeal must fail for another reason. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the question of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to prove that there was legal necessity for the mortgage. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that it would have been impossible to say that the father of a joint Hindu family could have had any legal necessity to alienate the family property to secure the payment of a debt by another person. We are unable to say when numberless combinations of facts are possible; that there could be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
